Reply Sun 8 May, 2011 08:08 pm
You stupid idiot! We had people in Iraq from the U.N. who were on the ground telling us that the Bush pronouncements were a bunch of **** but the conserative lying bastards that were part of the U.S.government (Bush and Cheny) told the electroate and congress dont pay any attention to those people on the ground because we in washington know more than the people who are there. Almost all republican conseratives are lying bastards and that includes you!
0 Replies
cicerone imposter
Reply Sun 8 May, 2011 08:45 pm
okie wrote,
Do not forget that almost every country's intelligence service thought Hussein had WMD,

FACT: During the lead-up to war in March 2003, Hans Blix had found no stockpiles of WMD and had made significant progress toward resolving open issues of disarmament noting "proactive" but not always the "immediate" Iraqi cooperation as called for by UN Security Council Resolution 1441. He concluded that it would take “but months” to resolve the key remaining disarmament tasks.[4] The United States asserted this was a breach of Resolution 1441 but failed to convince the UN Security Council to pass a new resolution authorizing the use of force due to lack of evidence.

Except for England, the UN which is made up of "all the other intelligence services" did not authorize the use of force. You lie again.

Hey, okie, how many lies a day do you tell your family and friends?

okie wrote,
Also do not forget that even Valerie Plame, the great CIA WMD specialist admitted in her book that she feared WMD would be used on our soldiers when they entered Iraq.

Another lie. From editorandpublisher.com.
"She was operations chief of the Joint Task Force on Iraq, a unit of the Counterproliferation Division of the clandestine Directorate of Operations. For the two years prior to her outing, Valerie Wilson worked to gather intelligence that would support the Bush White House's assertion that Saddam Hussein's Iraq was loaded with WMDs.

"This means that Armitage--as well as Karl Rove and Scooter Libby--leaked classified information about a CIA officer whose job it had been to look for evidence of Saddam's WMD programs. During this part of her career, Valerie Wilson traveled overseas to monitor operations she and her staff at JTFI were mounting. She was no analyst, no desk-jockey, no paper-pusher. She was in charge of running critical covert operations.

"'Hubris' and The Nation article, citing CIA sources, disclose that she was in covert operations and that--ironically--she had spent two years trying to find proof of the administration's claims that Iraq posed a WMD threat. She and the Joint Task Force on Iraq, of course, came up empty-handed. 'Hubris' and The Nation piece also report new revelations that undermine the charge that Valerie Wilson sent her husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson, on his trip to Niger."

okie wrote,
It is also historical record that Congress voted for the resolution to go into Iraq.

You're more than stupid and a goddam liar; you are too dumb to understand all the lies the Bush administration forced onto congress to get them to vote for war. Even Colin Powell lied to the UN and the world about WMDs. That's also a fact that most people remember and understand.

okie wrote,
History is history.

I had a good laugh on this one! You don't know history; you haven't shown any evidence of knowing any history. You know lies and innuendos.
Did your parents teach you to lie, or is that just genetic?

okie wrote,
Some of us remember what happened, instead of believing the spin of the liberal media after the fact.

No you don't! You have never posted anything about history that is accurate or backed by any evidence.

okie wrote,
We also remember what Joseph Wilson actually did instead of what he claimed.

Yea, these are the FACTS.

On July 7, the day after Wilson's original Times article, White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer took back the 16 words, calling them "incorrect:"

Fleischer: Now, we've long acknowledged -- and this is old news, we've said this repeatedly -- that the information on yellow cake did, indeed, turn out to be incorrect.

And soon after, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice acknowledged that the 16 words were, in retrospect, a mistake. She said during a July 11, 2003 White House press briefing:

Rice: What we've said subsequently is, knowing what we now know, that some of the Niger documents were apparently forged, we wouldn't have put this in the President's speech -- but that's knowing what we know now.

That same day, CIA Director George Tenet took personal responsibility for the appearance of the 16 words in Bush's speech:

Tenet: These 16 words shoulld never have been included in the text written for the President.

Reply Mon 9 May, 2011 07:55 am
@cicerone imposter,
Yes, who "remembers" Hans Blix? He was the John the Baptist of this situation, trampled by the herds following the Anti-Christ.
0 Replies
Reply Mon 9 May, 2011 07:57 am
@cicerone imposter,
Valerie Plame? When a president wants to rid himself of a covert agent, he outs that agent.
Reply Mon 9 May, 2011 07:57 am
Plame is lucky: President Cheney could have had her killed.
0 Replies
Reply Mon 9 May, 2011 08:00 am
This is just the lead from an article in the New Republic. One has to subscribe in order to read it in its entirety. It tells the truth.

One of the things Republicans seem to have forgotten, in the wake of the introduction and swift passage of their Dickensian budget crafted by Paul Ryan, is their unshakeable commitment to health care reform. Remember that? Throughout the health care debate, they were determined to rally around their own reform plan. And now the House has passed a long-term budget that yanks health insurance away from more than 40 million Americans and neglects to put anything in its place. Maybe it’s just an oversight, like the time in freshman year when I turned in a history paper with no bibliography. But it’s kind of starting to look like the Republicans don’t actually plan to do anything for the uninsured.

The history of the elusive Republican quest for a health care plan dates back at least to 1993. President Clinton had proposed comprehensive reform; the public believed the system to be in crisis. Congressional Republicans came up with a combination of subsidies, market regulation, and an individual mandate that presaged the law eventually signed by President Obama last year.
0 Replies
Reply Mon 9 May, 2011 08:31 am

Obama Gets a Union Endorsement
Reply Mon 9 May, 2011 08:49 am
Reply Mon 9 May, 2011 08:52 am
@cicerone imposter,
This video keeps getting replayed and replayed and replayed - have you noticed the gorilla yet, Okie?

[That was a hyphen splice - are they allowed?] Smile
0 Replies
Reply Mon 9 May, 2011 09:11 am
Despite what some among us would like to believe it is not because of our creative ideas; it is not because of the merit of our positions; it is not because we care about children; More.. and it is not because we have a vision of a great public school for every child.

The NEA and its affiliates are effective advocates because we have power. And we have power because there are more than 8/2 million people that are willing to pay us hundreds of millions of dollars in dues each year because they believe that we are the union that can most effectively represent them.

revelette wrote:

0 Replies
Reply Mon 9 May, 2011 09:42 am
That would be "we, the people", h2oman.
0 Replies
Reply Mon 9 May, 2011 08:31 pm
President Obama is considering a proposed executive order that would require government contractors to reveal all of their campaign-related spending.

Among other things, this would require many large corporations to reveal if they are giving money to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce for campaign-related purposes.

And so the Chamber is apoplectic over this very modest reform proposal. (You can download the draft Executive Order and read it yourself at www.citizen.org/disclosure-petition.)

An email action alert from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is remarkable not only for its sky-is-falling rhetoric, but also for its Alice-in-Wonderland logic. The Chamber, in effect, argues that the Executive Order will do exactly the opposite of what will happen in the real world.

The Chamber’s email is copied below, but consider the following “highlights.”

Here’s the title of the action alert:

Rewarding Political Donors ... With Your Tax Dollars? Help Us Stop the White House’s Proposed "Disclosure" Order.

Reality-based comment:

The Executive Order has nothing to do with rewarding political donors. It is about requiring donors to reveal their expenditures. And there’s no need to put “disclosure” in quotes. You can like or not like it, but either way, it’s about disclosure.

Here’s how the action alert starts:

How would you like your tax dollars only going to those companies or contractors that have contributed to a particular political party? Sounds like pay-to-play, right?

Reality-based comment:

Yes, it does. “Pay-to-play” is the slang name for the phenomenon of campaign contributors being given preferential access for contracting. Why would the Chamber be making this point? Well, read on.

Here’s what’s next in the action alert:

Well, that’s exactly what could happen if the White House, as expected, issues a new Executive Order (EO) requiring American employers seeking federal government contracts to disclose their political contributions in excess of $5,000.

Reality-based comment:

Unbelievable! The draft Obama executive order is intended to — and will in fact — reduce the incidence of pay-to-play abuses. The best way to prevent pay-to-play abuses is simply to ban campaign spending by government contractors. But short of that, disclosing campaign expenditures — as the Obama Executive Order would mandate — is the best way possible to limit the potential for abuse. Disclosure of government contactors’ campaign spending will help shine a light on the contracting process and diminish the likelihood of abuse and waste of taxpayer monies.

There’s more:

We understand that elections have consequences. But one of those consequences shouldn’t be the ability to use your tax dollars to reward — or punish — political donors.

Reality-based comment:

Here the Chamber is trying to argue that if the government knows which companies are making political expenditures, the administration in power will reward those it likes and punish those it doesn’t. There are many problems with that logic. Here’s one: The government already knows. Company political action committees must disclose their spending. Direct contributions by company executives and employees are already disclosed.

What is not disclosed publicly are the secret contributions that corporations funnel through trade associations and front groups to influence elections. Thanks to the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, more than $130 million in secret money was spent in the 2010 election, and that figure is certain to skyrocket in 2012. These secret donations are expenditures that corporations can use to extract special access and consideration — without even the check of the public knowing about the corporations’ leverage.

That’s not all the Chamber has to say:

But this is about politics, plain and simple. Consider the fact that the big labor unions would not be required to disclose their political spending under the proposed executive order — the same unions that spent more than $100 million in the 2010 elections.

Reality-based comment:

The executive order actually will apply to unions, in cases where they may be government contractors. But more to the point: There was legislation considered last year that would have required disclosure of all union contributions to groups making campaign-related expenditures. That legislation — the DISCLOSE Act — was defeated by a single vote in the Senate ... thanks to the opposition of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and its allies in the Republican Party.

Concludes the Chamber:

We can’t allow the White House to be distracted with mandates that would do nothing to address the great challenges that face America — and do little to restore taxpayers’ faith in our government.

Reality-based comment:

Sure. But the proposed Executive Order would impose very little on business. It would do quite a bit to restore taxpayers’ faith in government, by shining a light on the campaign spending-contracting nexus, and reducing the likelihood of corruption. And although every government action does not need to “address the great challenges that face America,” this one would — by strengthening our democracy and reducing the improper influence of corporate campaign spending.

Why is the Chamber so agitated over the draft Executive Order? Sure, it wants to protect the general power of corporations to funnel millions into trade associations and front groups secretly. But the Chamber has more than a general interest here. The number one recipient of such corporate funds is ... the Chamber itself.

So, as you evaluate the Chamber’s claims, and wonder about why this issue has the Chamber so worked up, it’s worth keeping in mind the Chamber’s concern that its ability to function as a secretive channel for corporate monies is at stake.

If you haven’t yet, add your name to out petition urging President Obama to sign the Executive Order.

And be sure to tell your friends and family about the petition, too!

In reality,

Robert Weissman
President, Public Citizen
0 Replies
Reply Mon 9 May, 2011 09:03 pm
This is an 8th grade civics test. I will post the answers later.

1. Which activity is an example of civil society rather than an example of government?

1. The sanitation department picks up Town X's garbage every Monday morning.
2. The School Board of Town X decides on its yearly budget.
3. A builder in Town X asks the planning board to approve his plans for a housing development.
4. The places of worship in Town X join together to provide food and shelter for the homeless.

2. A military government in Country X is taking away the political rights of a particular group in the country. What impact would this most likely have on the United States?

1.An increase in inflation in the United States
2. An increase in immigration from Country X to the United States
3. A decrease in United States import tariffs
4. A decrease in the number of cases brought before the Supreme Court

3. The United States and Japan disagree most about the
1. growing power of the Japanese military
2. openness of Japanese markets to American products
3. need to give aid to underdeveloped countries
4. number of Japanese who can immigrate to the United States

4. Which of the following has been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court?

1. Requiring students in public schools to recite prayers
2. Requiring journalists to reveal the names of people who provide information for news stories
3. Allowing citizens to sue the federal government
4. Allowing states to require that children be vaccinated against diseases

5. Which of the following is an example of people using power without having the right to do so?

1. The owner of a newspaper prints her own opinions in the newspaper.
2. A governor vetoes a bill passed by the state legislature.
3. A group of people against nuclear power march outside a nuclear power plant.
4. A police officer arrests someone because the person looks suspicious.

6. The process for amending the United States Constitution is described in Article V of the Constitution. According to Article V, both Congress and the states must participate in the amendment process. This requirement reflects which of the following ideas about the distribution of power in America?

1. Separation of powers among the three branches of government
2. Separation of church and state
3. The importance of local government control
4. The importance of federalism

7. Which of the following is a true statement about the United States Constitution?

1. It created a democratic socialist state.
2. It established a parliamentary government like that in Great Britain.
3. It proclaimed that the government was based upon the consent of the people.
4. It allowed a totalitarian government to function.

8. What is one responsibility that modern Presidents have that was not described in the Constitution?

1. Commanding the armed forces
2. Granting pardons
3. Appointing Supreme Court justices
4. Proposing an annual budget to Congress

9. Sometimes the common good conflicts with individual rights. Which of the following is an example of this?

1. A person is put in jail because she is guilty of a violent crime.
2. A person must move out of his house so that a highway can be built.
3. Schools are closed because of icy roads.
4. A community organizes to clean up a vacant lot.

10. Near the end of an election campaign, a poll shows that an issue that no candidate has mentioned is of great concern to voters. What is most likely to happen?

1. The election will be postponed.
2. Newspapers will not report the results of the poll.
3. Candidates will start talking about the issue.
4. Some candidates will drop out of the race.
Reply Mon 9 May, 2011 09:29 pm
My FIL sent me this test. I missed #8.
Reply Mon 9 May, 2011 11:09 pm
I missed #3.
0 Replies
Reply Tue 10 May, 2011 10:55 am
In an effort to protect his poll numbers, Obama is leaning more to the center of left.
0 Replies
Reply Tue 10 May, 2011 02:32 pm
A 3-judge federal appeals panel in the 4th U.S. Court in VA heard arguments re the constitutionality of the Health Reform Law which, among other things, would require people to purchase health insurance or pay a fine. Two lower courts in VA have split.
The 3 judges (out of 6) were randomly selected from the full court of 6. 1 was appointed by Clinton and 2 by Obama. A decision is expected in 6 weeks and, then, after an appeal to the full 6- judge court, it will likely head to the Supreme Court.
Reply Tue 10 May, 2011 03:29 pm
realjohnboy wrote:

A decision is expected in 6 weeks and, then, after an appeal to the full 6- judge court, it will likely head to the Supreme Court.

Any ideas about the final outcome?
Reply Tue 10 May, 2011 03:47 pm
With regard to the 3-judge court and the full 6-judge court (acknowledging that I am not a lawyer), I suspect that the Health Care law will stand. The reason: The state of Virginia has no dog in the fight. It can't claim that it is harmed by the so-called individual mandate.
I have no idea how this will turn out once it gets to the Supreme Court.
We may, or may not, get a decision before the next presidential election.

What is your expectation based on your reading?
Reply Tue 10 May, 2011 07:46 pm


April 2011 13,747,000
March 2011 13,542,000
February 2011 13,673,000
January 2011 13,863,000
December 2010 14,485,000


Related Topics

So....Will Biden Be VP? - Question by blueveinedthrobber
My view on Obama - Discussion by McGentrix
Obama/ Love Him or Hate Him, We've Got Him - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Obama fumbles at Faith Forum - Discussion by slkshock7
Expert: Obama is not the antichrist - Discussion by joefromchicago
Obama's State of the Union - Discussion by maxdancona
Demand a plan - Discussion by H2O MAN
  1. Forums
  2. » Obama '08?
  3. » Page 2035
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.17 seconds on 07/25/2021 at 04:37:24